Follow @BoredCricket

player profiles

Bored Invents

much as the ban on benn is harsh and unfortunate... much as the crap judgment thrust upon him ...but i was thinking... could broad have done anything differently...?

your case is as good as the FIR lodged by you... against you...

the framing of charges depends upon the investigation officer's investigation and observations and once the charges are framed (rightly or wrongly) the court cannot go beyond the scope of charges framed...

much like this story... when a nurse was raped and strangled and left to die... police lodged the FIR against culprit... and framed charges for attempted murder and stealing the earrings... but they never framed charges for a rape... coz police was not convinced the rape happened...

the result?

he got convicted for seven years in jail... but not for the rape...

however unfortunate the story is but to drive home the point...

the judiciary system always works like that...a judge cannot go beyond the scope of charges framed... and is bound to deliver justice on that premise... even if they know it... court can take matters suo moto and direct respective authorities to book a case but once the charges are framed the proceeding will be limited to that...

icc is no different... they too (would) have devised the process along these lines...

so once on field umpires in the elite panel appointed by the icc prepare a report and lay it in front of the match referee, again appointed by the icc, i think he was bound to go by the charges framed against the culprits (benn, haddin & johnson)... it is the duty of on field umpires to prepare and report the incident as they interpret it would have happened and frame charges accordingly (justifiably or not)...

chris broad could or could not have taken action... but once he decided to take action he could not have gone beyond the scope of the report or charges pressed by umpires... as far as i understand...

so i think more than broad... the on field umpires pissed in their pants... could not muster enough courage and/or grossly failed to report it the way it happened... hence the judgment...

disclaimer: i am not trying to justify broad or the judgment... which i think is nothing but bullshit... but i am just trying to explore possibilities and initiate debate in this light...

8 comments:

ya I fully agree with you on thisit's like when over enthusiastic people started blaming Ram Jethmalani for taking Manu Sharma's case.Jeth Malani was right as unless proved guilty manu is not a convict and as a lawyer he sees every under trial as innocent.

In the same way, Broad made his decision based on the case the field umpires, match referee made for him; he just conformed to his professional commitment.

Broad is not obligated to impose only one penalty. There are a range of penalties he can choose from.

Granted Benn's was a level 2 charge and the others level 1, but he could have seen the circumstances and imposed penalties which were closer to the level of culpability of the players (a severe fine in all cases or only a very marginal difference).

However, by banning one for 2 matches and by handing out slaps on the wrists to the other 2, he has clearly exercised his discretion in a terribly wrong and (possibly) racist manner.

Alok, it's true that Broad could have accepted that it was not worthy of a level 2 charge, but once he did there are also guidelines about penalties based on pleading guilty or not. I'm not sure off the top of my head how much more lenient Broad could have been to Benn given that he plead not guilty, but there was no way the Australians' penatlies were going to be close to it after they plead guilty. I would say the level 2 charge was deserved, and if the Australians were equally culpable, then questions need to be asked of the onfield umpires and the other two who supported the charges.

Sorry, Alok, it's actually far from clear what effect the guilty pleas should have, and paying attention to them is arguably inappropriate. (Out of interest, has anyone happened to save a copy of the old version of the code of conduct?)

I still don't think an argument that someone else should have been charged worse justifies reducing a sanction, though.

and her eis Big Bird on it, when asked aout Shane Wat:son's "celebrations" after gettng Gayle's wicket in innings 2:

West Indies team manager Joel Garner said: ''I am not even going to entertain the thought. The match referee is the man in charge and he will do whatever he feels is best. I go back to Animal Farm days, George Orwell, they say all animals are equal and later on in the same book they say some animals are more equal than others. Maybe that applies in some cases.''

I thnk the technicalities mattered a bit - pleading gulilty v/s not pleading guilty - but I say it from "dim memory", so may be wrong.

well, at least they "mashed some meat" in the Punty's arm. Go Pakistan go - mash some more.